Plane and Pax Switcharoo in MSP
 

So I've heard of planes being switched for flights last minute (equipment change). Well how about this, was flying MSP-MKE on the last flight of the day 562. I board with F around 10pm, handful of Y pax join us.

For the next 10 min no pax board, we on board start to get nervous. GA comes to the plane door and announces NWA Ops is changing gates from C12 to F9. Great.

We deplane, head to the F terminal. Funny, about a planeful of pax are heading our direction. 1045ish boarding starts at F9. Entire plane boards. ~1100pm all pax are boarded, excuse to equipment switch is given (more on this later). We are told mechanical is coming to do a "quick signoff" on some things inside the airplane, "nothing major." Mechanical comes, and surprise, they need another 20 min to fully "inspect" the plane. 1130, pilot announces inspection is complete. 1145, finally the plane pulls back from gate.

Excuse given is that there are two versions of the A320, one has more "thrust" than the other. Since the pax on the plane we eventually rode were going to SAN, they needed more thrust. Wasn't told why, they just did. Make up time in the air? Apparently we were the only other "available" A320.

Pilot also told us that the SAN pax were already delayed. I think the excuse was a bunch of BS, my guess is that NWA ops didn't want to delay the SAN pax further and switched our plane with theirs.

Thoughts?

Sounds like it could be partially viable as an excuse. The general west-east headwinds could be the reason, but more importantly, SAN has airport curfew. As a near to the airport resident, we get a quarterly newsletter from the SAN Airport Commission and they like to tout the fines they imposed in the last quarter for airlines violating curfew, and there are no free passes. Also, too many violations (I think 3 in one quarter) can result in possible revocation of landing rights. Likely a very extreme punishment that they wouldn't carry out but the threat is there.
It was probably boiling down to flying faster and hoping for favorable routing to beat curfew or cancel the SAN flight until the morning which probably meant more $$$ out of NW's pockets than even the fine at SAN.

There are two standard engines on the A320 & both have various subtypes with varying thrust ratings.

Possibly the flight to SAN was heavier (fuel, pax) and needed the higher thrust engines for takeoff.

I think all of Northwest's A320s have the same CFM56 engines. Are some rated differently due to age or something? Obviously quite different needs between the ~300 miles to MKE vs ~1500 to SAN. I wonder if one was fueled up and the other not.

Very strange

NWs A320s (and 319s) do use CFM56 engines (there are many many different CFM models and subtypes e.g. www.cfm56.com), however from what I recall, there were some earlier A320s that had lower thrust versions of the CFM56 model used by NW on the A320s. I might be mistaken, however I thought NW had retired or let lease expire on some of the older models that had the lower thrust engines, or, they were slated to be retired thus leaving a few in the fleet. - H

Could this have something to do with the difference between an A320 and an A320SR?

You may be on to something. According to this post at a.net:
Note the small differences in engine types.

According to Wikipedia, there can be differences in thrust between engines in the same series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_Int...FM56-5A_series

And finally, it seems NW made a large engine order of the higher-rated engines back in '96, so some could have more powerful engines than others:

http://www.cfm56.com/press/news/nort...5a3+engines/39

Well either way, it was interesting call by NWA ops. Resulted in two planes of frustrated pax. I guess it comes with travelling.

There can be little doubt that this switcheroo was indeed due to the SAN curfew and the desire by Ops to avoid the fine (previously mentioned).

This, of course, is another subtle but significant way that airlines transfer operational risk to pax. Why bother biting the bullet, taking your financial lumps for poor ops? Just pull the equipment switcheroo. Heck, it's only pax, it's only 2 hours, they don't count. They've already paid their $$. Just delay them at will. Yeah, that'll work.

What a country.

Indeed, the carrier actually got the passengers to their destinations safe, delayed, yet safe plus the passengers had a choice of who and when to fly and with those choices, how much to pay (more for direct with a stop), less for more stops and chances for misconnects, what a country indeed. ^

-H

Indeed. Let's play - blame the pax! Of course it's the pax fault that this happened! They made their choice, after all...paid their $$, then got to the airport fully EXPECTING to arrive safe and on time for their chosen $$ amount, and they got 2 out of 3. That's good in baseball, not so good in travel.

Meanwhile, the airline flew safe, banked the $$ (no $$ penalty for being delayed, after all) and delayed the pax on purpose. They got the trifecta. No loss of $$ and transfer of all their risk to the pax, who received no compensation for that risk. Brilliant!

Wow :eek:

Don't forget the empty "we apologize" lots of times.

+1

All those choices for the pax took place before the night in question. However, during the night in question it was NW, not the pax, that had two choices:

1. We can send one plane out on time, and send another plane out with a delay and possibly incur a fine at their destination for a noise violation.
2. We can send both planes out delayed, in an attempt to avoid the noise violation.

I'm not sure what your point is about n/s and misconnects. That had nothing to do with this situation. Who knows if anyone on either plane was connecting or not, and it wouldn't matter. And why credit for flying pax safely? Isn't that our standard, our baseline? Are we expecting every flight to be unsafe and therefore we should be thrilled and compliment the airline for getting us there safe? Safe is part of their job, and I don't think people need extra credit for just doing their job. Do you thank NW with a ^ every time they manage to not lose your checked luggage? How about every time you manage to actually get on board rather than receive an IDB... ^ ?

The OP has subsidized NW's screw up with his lost time.

Are you really all THAT inflexible? The airline understands you buy a ticket for ontime, safe transport. But come on... you all are road warriors! Think outside the box and be flexible. It's incredible to me that you're all surprised glitches happen and complain about it as if it's general practice to attempt to screw the passenger. There are a million decisions that take place to launch one single flight. Sometimes it really isn't all about the customer. While the customer is truly an important variable, there are many other pieces to the puzzle.

Actually, out of habit, every time I get off of a flight which tends to be NW, I do in fact make a point of saying thank you to the crew, nice flight or nice service, nice landing, or what ever to simply acknowledge the people who delivered the service, regardless of if I expect it or not, same applies with GAs and so forth. On the other hand, given that I rarely check bags, Im not sure who to say thanks to when they arrive on-time, other than when I fill out the surveys that I get from NW which I've noticed tend to arrive after an irregular operation, weather or mechanical related.

IDB, not sure what your point is, however since you mention IDB, humm, in over 2,000 flights (yes, I have a log), and I can honestly say I have only incurred one IDB. VDB, sure and for those I was compensated for given that they were VDB. In the one case of an IDB, I did end up thanking a station manager and some supervisors who got involved and made the situation right and a win win for all involved, except perhaps to the non-rev who was moved from FC to the main cabin to free up a seat for me as part of the IDB “package” and solution. Maybe I have been luck in avoiding IDBs I really don’t know how often they occur compared to VDBs, that’s just my experience, perhaps they occur more often.

[QUOTE=cs19;10861873]+1

Ok, so here's my point, its simple, we as passengers pick and choose who we fly with for different reasons, both domestically and internationally, it may be price, it may be flight times, connections, trying to minimize connections and chances for problems and so forth among other preferences.

As passengers or consumers, we should assume that the carrier will do their best effort, hopefully as close to 100% reliable as possible within their control to get us where we are going when we planned to go for what we are paying/contracting with the carrier for the service to be provided.

Should the carrier not deliver on their part, and, assuming the issue was within the carriers control, then reasonable compensation can be expected, something that I have seen occur many times in the past.

However, I also assume that when I make my travel plans that there is always the chance that something might occur, that I might be delayed, and try to build that into trip planning when and where possible.

Bottom line is this, if the carrier does not get me to where they are supposed to in the time frame they are supposed to due to circumstances within their control, then I would expect something reasonable from the carrier in relation to the amount of delay or service disruptions experienced, which could be some miles, an apology (real sincere or non sincere), or what ever. If the carrier does their best, and on average meets or exceeds my service expectation, they get a thank you and more of my business. Chose to agree or disagree, that’s the beauty of traveling and having travel choices and discussions in this country. - H

Fair enough. And, sorry if I sounded too much like I was going after you, hooverer. I still think that if it was a decision based upon the noise violation issue, it was a poor move by NW. Covering their own a$$ at the cost of the OP.

But that got me thinking. The OP said the SAN flight was already delayed. Could there really be that much of a difference in flight time due to thrust? Wouldn't boarding the pax to SAN at the gate they were already at with the a/c the crew was presumably already on, be quicker than marching everyone down to a new gate with a new plane? The a/c couldn't make up that much time, right?

CS not a problem, and what's not known in this is all of the variables that some dispatcher at NW had to balance into the equation which while the OP was late, sounds like they made it to SAN before curfew caused them to not make it to SAN that evening. Its always a pain when late, however, assuming Im flying in the night before a meeting or to get home, would rather be late and still arrive that evening, vs. having to wait for the next day and curfew to lift.

As to your second point, interesting thought and Im sure someone with more expertise or time on their hands can weigh in, however with the higher thrust engines, means in theory they can put more fuel on board and getup and off the ground effectively, more fuel on board means being able to cruise at a faster speed going into the wind (if any) meaning being able to get in under the curfew.

Would NW do this? My guess is yes in that in the big picture, NW had to get the crew into SAN before the curfew so that they could operate the mornings flight to keep the next days schedule in tact and avoid the ripple effect.

Have I been on a similar flight? Yup, on similar flights into curfew controlled airports like SAN and SNA, as well as on non curfew flights that were delayued, however where schedules needed to be kept as close to on-time as possible. For example a MSP-DTW, the flight was delayed for some reason I forget, they added extra fuel during the delay, and basicly kept the plane at as close to full speed as practical between MSP-DTW, was one of the fastest (once in the air) flights between MSP-DTW I have ever been on and some of the time was made up. Likewise a recent MSP-AMS flight was very late departing for mechanical reasons, time was made up enroute and result was about 30 minutes late (of course making time up with the wind at your tail tends to be easier ;) ).

-H

I don't think I or anyone else ever really implied that we are that inflexible. I didn't even TTU this. I wasn't happy yes, but I accept it comes with travelling a lot. If anything, I was more amused seeing a plane-numbered of pax walking towards my gate as I was going towards theirs.

I think the bigger reason I posted this was to invoke a productive insightful discussion on how NWA ops handles IRROPS like mechanicals and such. I think all the posters have managed to articulate some very good points. Particularly how they will inconvenience a certain % of pax, to lesser inconvenience another set. What decisions are made affects the overall CS impression NWA has.

Back to the original issue, I personally don't think the thrust really had much time impact, rather they knew the original SAN plane and now ours (MKE) would take another hour to depart, whereas our original plane was ready to go.

Nice point taking a step back. With the thread twisting back and forth, you bring back to a good point.

Swap the planes, take the delay and any penalties, enable the SAN bound flight to get in under the curfew, late, however still under the curfew^, enable the MKE flight to arrive late, yet arrive none the less^, have planes and crews in position within rest time limits for next days schedule^, while many delayed:(, some may have recieved bonus miles or something while others may not have:confused: (we dont know) all survived to be delayed another day on a future flgiht;). - H

I guess I just find it annoying when the crews are trying to do the best they can and you've got people calling them liars and not trusting their information. The decisions like these are made at other levels than the crews and gate agents. The crew and gate agents just pass the message along and are many times, the last ones to find out about these things. If you're not satisfied with the information you're given, ask for more. But please just don't automatically assume you're being lied to. There just simply isn't enough time to give a play by play 20 minute PA as to every detail involved in the "big picture" decision making process. There is a reason for EVERYTHING that happens at an airline. They're not excuses.

Bravo, well said Azj^

azj, this is the crux of the problem -"wasn't told why, they just did."

of course we are flexible, of course we expect things to happen and glitches to occur. that's life. but what we also expect is to be told the entire story...especially as elites. perhaps it just comes with the territory. the crew on that MKE flight did everything right, except explain why they needed more thrust. surely you can't expect elites to hear "the SAN flight needed more thrust" and not expect them to wonder why - if not onboard, then afterwards on this forum?

So, the not being told the "why" is the essence of the problem. Had they said, "we need more thrust in order for the SAN pax and our NW crew to avoid a curfew violation", I bet the MKE pax would have been fine with it.

Oh, and a few miles added to the bank. You can't expect the MKE elites to be delayed 2 hours for nothing. If you're not going to them them a partial $$ refund (heavens!), then give them a decent slug of miles.

No, you guys are not liars. Of course not. Neither are we. So next time there is a weird op, please tell the _whole_ story, not just the parts that you (and ops) think are necessary. The pax, especially the elites, have this funny way of sensing they are not getting the full monty.

I think it's amusing that folks here have probably spent more time dissecting this issue on an online message board than the original delay actually caused. ;)

Did it every occur to anyone that the crew doesn't always have the whole story? How does the OP not know that the SAN passengers weren't briefed? Again, even if we did know the whole story, there isn't time to explain the gory details of every step that was taken to arrive at the decisions made.

I bet if you survey an entire plane load of passengers very few listen to the crew and could repeat the instructions or details from an announcement... even elites. I don't know how many times I've had a boat load of people ask me "why", when I just made a PA. I don't know how many times people ask where the planeside baggage will be, when the FA JUST made the announcement.

This isn't going to be a thread about crew vs. passengers. I'm done here.

Might be due to an interest in the topic, or, as a means of getting some more posts in :D

This is absolutely true. When anyone (in this case NWA) doesn't provide accurately timely information, it is only human behavior to naturally assume the worst and fill-in-the-blanks with worst case scenarios. Further, when NWA keeps changing the information and the 15 min becomes another 15 min, do you really blame pax for being skeptical? Keep in mind this isn't just a NWA problem, rather a travel industry problem in my opinion (equal to hotels saying sorry we don't have upgraded rooms available or we're overbooked and magically a room appears).

I never implied that the crew/GA was a liar or withheld information. I know that they are in the same boat as pax are and need to get from A to B. It is unfortunate and NWA ops' fault for giving misinformation and thereby leave the crew to deal with angry pax. That's why I never get mad at GA's when delays/mechanicals/changes happen, I know it isn't their fault.

And I would disagree that pax don't listen to announcements, I think pax do listen particularly when there are delays. Again, my frustration occurs when something is announced and then changed. In this specific case, how does mechanics are on their way and need to sign off for a few minor things, nothing major, just stuff inside the aircraft - it'll only be 5 min; turn into a 20 min external inspection of the plane? Again, not the crew's or pilot's fault, but clearly a miscommunication from nwa ops that reflects badly on the entire company - crew and all.

Look - there are about 10 work groups that work to get the flight out. When there is a mx problem the pilots call mx control and mx control dispatches the mechanics. There is no interaction between the pilots and mechanics until they arrive at the airplane. How in the world does anyone expect the pilots to be able to pinpoint with swiss timing, the amount of minutes it will take to deal with a mx problem? When you take your car in for repairs, they give you an estimated time. There is no difference here. Mechanics get a BASIC idea of the problem when dispatched by mx control. It isn't until they arrive at an airplane and do their job, that the whole picture is discovered. THAT is why most delays are "rolling." We're also required to update every 15 minutes, with or without news, so that you're all kept in the loop, which is where your dreaded creeping 15 minute announcements come from. Sometimes we don't have the whole story or an accurate story to tell you. Passengers just have to have patience and flexibility when something irregular occurs.

Methinks the OP (and others) should be happy they got to their destination that night at all in any case. I faced a similar "plane swap" situation in FNT a few years ago, back when XJ was flying Avros. We were waiting at Gate 1 DTW-bound when the Gate 2 MSP-bound flight went MX. Ops swapped gates and we found out when all the MSP pax marched into the boarding area; looking up at the monitor I could see that it now read MSP with their flight monitor. When I walked over to 2, our flight was listed as CX.

Since these were the last flights of the day, I hustled down to the counter, only to be told it would be a couple of days until NW could get me to WAS (high loads). I ended up staying home that week after declaring "trip in vain" and getting a full refund on a "non-refundable" Y fare. The work suffered a slight bit, but I didn't feel it good stewardship of the Company's money to fly down there for only a day's work (Thu).

So, again, be glad everyone made it that day.

Very true! And the pax will go on to take this experience into account when booking their future travel plans...except that in MKE, it's a pretty safe bet for NW to take that they aren't going to lose those pax. Do I really think this entered the equation that evening, no! But certainly delaying the large # of elites based in MKE is less likely to be harmful on loyalty than a plane full of "average pax." The miles popping up automatically in your account certainly helps too (I assume this happened...it has to me in the past, but no delays lately!).

On a somewhat related note, in the Milwauke Journal Sentinal today, NW had 17.6% market share in MKE in 10/08, up from 12.7% in 10/07 (only partly explained by adding MKE-LAX). Add in the 7.9% of DL (up from 7.4%), and they've got more than a quarter at MKE. Meanwhile YX went from 53.5% in 10/07 to 36.2% in 10/08. Of course FL more than doubled its share in the last year, from 7.1% to 17.6%, Oct is before their seasonal pull-down though of course.

I had patience, I had flexibility. But if pilots don't talk with mechanics and they can't pinpoint timing, then don't say it will only be a few minutes. Just say mechanics are coming and we will keep you apprised of the situation. I don't have a problem them telling me what they know, I have a problem saying one thing when they either don't know, or it is going to change. Again, I fault mostly the NWA ops folks.

Rolling delays are what frustrates/angers pax. Perhaps those that subscribe to such should consider better transparency and honesty.

For the record I was happy to get to my destination. While I wasn't ecstatic about the delay, I think I have made it clear that I understand things happen when you travel and one should expect it. My postings here have been more or less to evoke a good discussion on how NWA handled it and to inquire into the "thrust" issue.

I usually do not book last flights of the day, in this case I had to make a change to it because of a work conf.